I don't think I was defending them either, just po...

2008-11-12T19:20:00.000+00:00

I don't think I was defending them either, just pointing out the facts regarding the Jones case. In any event, if a newspaper ran a story saying I'd told someone to "fuck off" when I hadn't I'd want to do something about it; I doubt Jones ran straight to his lawyers. Going by Dacre's remarks, they decided to string it out in the hope that Jones would back down when they claimed they had solid witnesses; a jury subsequently decided they didn't. MoS's fault, not the libel laws.

JohnI can't tell if you're referring to me, but if...

2008-11-12T19:13:00.000+00:00

John

I can't tell if you're referring to me, but if you are I'm not "defending our libel laws". I'm merely stating that Dacre doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to legal costs.

While I agree with you in general, I can't believe...

2008-11-12T01:49:00.000+00:00

While I agree with you in general, I can't believe you're defending our libel laws. Anyone who thinks "someone saying you were a bit rude to someone else" is grounds for a court case should be horsewhipped to death, even if the first "someone" in question is Mr Dacre...

Bloody hell, he does talk some bollocks over CFAs....

2008-11-11T20:26:00.000+00:00

Bloody hell, he does talk some bollocks over CFAs.

"Costs in CFA cases, as many of you here know, can be almost infinite with lawyers entitled to “success fees” of up to 100% on top of their actual bills."

No intelligent person could ever say that legal costs can be "almost infinite".

"This gives them a positive financial incentive to take relatively straight-forward cases, worth just a few thousand pounds, and run them as long as possible."

If he knew anything about English law, he would say that the winning party can only claim "reasonable legal costs". No Court would allow any legal fees to be incurred simply through the case dragging on unnecessarily or for any work that is done which was not required.

"Adding insult to injury, CFA claimants can take out very expensive ATE (after the event) insurance policies to protect themselves against costs. If they win, the paper has to pay the claimant’s premium,"

Again, the wining party can only pay what the Court considers to be reasonable. The Claimant may take out on an insurance policy that costs them thousands, but if the court considers that they could have got one for a few hundred, that's all they'll be allowed.

"In the event, they lost and were ordered to pay £5,000 in damages."

Legal cases aren't simply a case of how much it settles for. It might be a complex case which obviously would create a lot of work.

"The MP’s lawyers claimed costs of £388,000 – solicitor’s costs of £68,000, plus 100% success fees, barrister’s costs of £63,000, plus 100% success fees, VAT and libel insurance of £68,000."

They may claim this much, but won't be awarded that. They claim 100% due to case-law which says that the success fee can be reduced from say 100% to 50%, but if they only claim 50% at the start they then can't increase it later on if the prospects get worse.

A 100% success fee suggests that they only had a 50/50 chance of winning. As English libel law favours the Claimant, it would probably be reduced, again to what is considered to be reasonable. In any event, it could be a case that they could have their legal costs covered by some existing insurance policy, e.g. car insurance, so the success fee wouldn't be allowed at all.

Someone should pass Mr. Dacre a copy of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Comments on Obsolete: The Daily Mail in the flesh.

I don't think I was defending them either, just po...

JohnI can't tell if you're referring to me, but if...

While I agree with you in general, I can't believe...

Bloody hell, he does talk some bollocks over CFAs....